I noticed there were 13 votes in Perseus for reading ἥτ᾽ as a vocativewhere it seems to me a nominative is perfectly adequate.

Raeburn-Thomas recommend reading μεγάλων κόσμων as “great glories” in reference to the following net thrown over the Trojan fortifications, i.e., victory in warfare. Perhaps I am letting my exposure to Koine get in the way here but νὺξ φιλία μεγάλων κόσμων κτεάτειρα looks like an unambiguous reference to the visual splendor of the night sky. R-T call this reading merely decorative. I don’t think so.

τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ caused me to pause. The referent of τὸν is Δία. Joining τάδε with πράξαντ᾽ as part pl aor act neut acc/nom didn’t seem right. In other words there is a conflict between joining τὸν or τάδε with the participle. Probably something perfectly obvious that I am overlooking, having one of those days when the obvious isn’t at all obvious.

Another alternative suggested by the voting in Perseus

verb 3rd pl aor ind mid homeric ionic unaugmentedthe had 11 votes in Perseus. Not sure how this voting works, if it is linked to the [co-]text you migrated from. If not, it is irrelevant.

UDATE:

This morning I looked at the various translations, David Grene's "He has done all this" renders my understanding of the 364a syntax τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ where τὸν is the subject of πράξαντ᾽ and τάδε the object. Some translations eliminate this clause altogether, e.g., Ann Carson, R. Fagles.

τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ caused me to pause. The referent of τὸν is Δία. Joining τάδε with πράξαντ᾽ as part pl aor act neut acc/nom didn’t seem right. In other words there is a conflict between joining τὸν or τάδε with the participle. Probably something perfectly obvious that I am overlooking, having one of those days when the obvious isn’t at all obvious.

Another alternative suggested by the voting in Perseus

verb 3rd pl aor ind mid homeric ionic unaugmentedthe had 11 votes in Perseus. Not sure how this voting works, if it is linked to the [co-]text you migrated from. If not, it is irrelevant.

UDATE:

This morning I looked at the various translations, David Grene's "He has done all this" renders my understanding of the 364a syntax τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ where τὸν is the subject of πράξαντ᾽ and τάδε the object. Some translations eliminate this clause altogether, e.g., Ann Carson, R. Fagles.

An update to the update, it looks like not only is τὸν the subject of πράξαντ᾽ and τάδε the object but τὸν is also the subject of τείνοντα and τόξον the object. The referent of τὸν once again is Δία line 361. One might consider this a parallelism with πράξαντ᾽ and τάδε in parallel with τείνοντα and τόξον, but the syntactical complexity would argue against it.

Thanks Nate, that makes sense. Otherwise votes would be useless. David Grene's translation is the only clue I could come up with about how a Tragedy expert might parse this clause. But translations are dicey guides to parsing.

The only way I can make any sense out of πράξαντ᾽ as a finite verb (3rd pl aor ind mid homeric ionic unaugmented[1]) is to look all the way back to line 355 ὦ Ζεῦ βασιλεῦ καὶ νὺξ φιλία for the subject, which doesn't fly since we have a subject more close at hand in Δία in 362.

τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ caused me to pause. The referent of τὸν is Δία. Joining τάδε with πράξαντ᾽ as part pl aor act neut acc/nom didn’t seem right. In other words there is a conflict between joining τὸν or τάδε with the participle. Probably something perfectly obvious that I am overlooking, having one of those days when the obvious isn’t at all obvious.

Another alternative suggested by the voting in Perseus

verb 3rd pl aor ind mid homeric ionic unaugmentedthe had 11 votes in Perseus. Not sure how this voting works, if it is linked to the [co-]text you migrated from. If not, it is irrelevant.

UDATE:

This morning I looked at the various translations, David Grene's "He has done all this" renders my understanding of the 364a syntax τὸν τάδε πράξαντ᾽ where τὸν is the subject of πράξαντ᾽ and τάδε the object. Some translations eliminate this clause altogether, e.g., Ann Carson, R. Fagles.

I think the voting on Perseus is not always trust-worthy. Here πράξαντ᾽ seems to be aor. ind. act. part. sg. masc. acc. referring to Δία with τάδε as its object. Unless Tragedy has a different way of forming the aor. part. of πράττω.And like you said, it's in parallel with pres. ind. act. part. sg. masc. acc. τείνοντα withobject τόξον.

There's a long treatment on Peile about the final clause here. He referenced Matthiae's Grammar vol. 2 §520 Obs.2 for similar examples.

Sidwick rightly notes that ὅπως ἂν ... σκήψειεν (opt.) is not allowed in Attic final clauses, but is a common Homeric usage.

Usually I find these Perseus votes helpful. However, it looks like that in this particular section the votes have been given by aspiring Hellenists who have just begun their first semester of Greek... Because for καιροῦ, at line 365, the incomprehensible "verb 3rd sg imperf ind act homeric ionic contr unaugmented" gets 6 votes (while "noun sg masc gen" gets 3 votes + the vote I just gave).

Just ignore the votes in this section. But like I said, I often find them helpful.

NateD26 wrote:There's a long treatment on Peile about the final clause here. He referenced Matthiae's Grammar vol. 2 §520 Obs.2 for similar examples.

Sidwick rightly notes that ὅπως ἂν ... σκήψειεν (opt.) is not allowed in Attic final clauses, but is a common Homeric usage.

Thanks for pointing this out, though Peile's text is heavy reading, with all those comparisons to Latin among other things. (My Latin is rudimentary.) But it reminds me that I need to study those final clauses. Also, thanks for pointing out this isn't standard Attic.

Peile doesn't have the same line numbers as the recent editions. Does anyone know from which edition the now standard numbers come from?

Sidwick rightly notes that ὅπως ἂν ... σκήψειεν (opt.) is not allowed in Attic final clauses, but is a common Homeric usage.

Nate,

I spent some time looking into this with what I have on hand; Smyth 2201-2202, Cooper 1:54.8.4.C p. 717, 2:54.8.4.B p. 2430. It doesn't appear that ὡς ἂν or ὅπως ἂν with the optative in final clauses is limited to Homer. Cooper's treatment was very hard for me to understand (read it several times last night and again this morning). He seemed to be saying that ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive isn't really a final clause but with optative it is final. I wouldn't place much confidence in my understanding of Cooper's explanation.

I did a tabulation of translations on hand to see who translated this as an unambiguous final clause:

+ Lattimore, Collard, Grene, McNiece0 Fagles- Hamilton, Carson

Thanks for doing the work of finding these references. I looked at each one.

I spent some time looking into this with what I have on hand; Smyth 2201-2202, Cooper 1:54.8.4.C p. 717, 2:54.8.4.B p. 2430. It doesn't appear that ὡς ἂν or ὅπως ἂν with the optative in final clauses is limited to Homer. Cooper's treatment was very hard for me to understand (read it several times last night and again this morning). He seemed to be saying that ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive isn't really a final clause but with optative it is final. I wouldn't place much confidence in my understanding of Cooper's explanation.

Thanks, Stirling. Can you please explain what is ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive then if not final?

I spent some time looking into this with what I have on hand; Smyth 2201-2202, Cooper 1:54.8.4.C p. 717, 2:54.8.4.B p. 2430. It doesn't appear that ὡς ἂν or ὅπως ἂν with the optative in final clauses is limited to Homer. Cooper's treatment was very hard for me to understand (read it several times last night and again this morning). He seemed to be saying that ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive isn't really a final clause but with optative it is final. I wouldn't place much confidence in my understanding of Cooper's explanation.

Thanks, Stirling. Can you please explain what is ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive then if not final?

Nate,I don’t claim to understand what Copper is driving at. For what it’s worth Cooper (1:54.8.4 v1. p716) says the subjunctive w/ ἂν "presents a less specifically final conception so that ὅπως ἂν becomes the equivalent of ἤν πως..." and again, the subjunctive w/ ἂν introduces a “slightly evasive doubt” into final clauses. The “slightly evasive doubt” does not apply to Epic (Cooper 2:54.8.4.A v3. p2430).

I spent some time looking into this with what I have on hand; Smyth 2201-2202, Cooper 1:54.8.4.C p. 717, 2:54.8.4.B p. 2430. It doesn't appear that ὡς ἂν or ὅπως ἂν with the optative in final clauses is limited to Homer. Cooper's treatment was very hard for me to understand (read it several times last night and again this morning). He seemed to be saying that ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive isn't really a final clause but with optative it is final. I wouldn't place much confidence in my understanding of Cooper's explanation.

Thanks, Stirling. Can you please explain what is ὡς/ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive then if not final?

Nate,I don’t claim to understand what Copper is driving at. For what it’s worth Cooper (1:54.8.4 v1. p716) says the subjunctive w/ ἂν "presents a less specifically final conception so that ὅπως ἂν becomes the equivalent of ἤν πως..." and again, the subjunctive w/ ἂν introduces a “slightly evasive doubt” into final clauses. The “slightly evasive doubt” does not apply to Epic (Cooper 2:54.8.4.A v3. p2430).

I wish I could understand all those nuances. Quite an intriguing distinction!

b. ἄν (κέ) does not appreciably affect the meaning. Originally these particles seem to have had a limitingand conditional force (1762): ὡς ἄν in whatever way, that so (cp. so = in order that so) as in “Teachme to die that so I may Rise glorious at the awful day” (Bishop Ken), and cp. ὡς with ὅτῳ τρόπῳ inἱκόμην τὸ Πυθικὸν μαντεῖον, ὡς μάθοιμ' ὅτῳ τρόπῳ πατρὶ δίκας ἀροίμην I came to the Pythian shrinethat I might learn in what way I might avenge my father S. El. 33. With ὅπως ἄν cp. ἐάν πως. Both ὅπωςand ὡς were originally relative adverbs denoting manner (how, cp. 2578), but when they becameconjunctions (in order that), their limitation by ἄν ceased to be felt.

Cooper 1:54.8.4 p. 717, observes that we never see ἄν with ἵνα because ἵνα is unambiguously final: in order that at, whereas ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive means something like: to see if. Just to see if Cooper was right I searched for ἵνα ἄν with subjunctive. It appears in

but now all are compelled to vote one way or the other about them, in order that if anyone being a rascal has got rid of his accusers,1 it may rest with the jurymen to disqualify him. Trans. H. Rackham.

Cooper 1:54.8.4 p. 717, observes that we never see ἄν with ἵνα because ἵνα is unambiguously final: in order that at, whereas ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive means something like: to see if.

I do remember from my first- (and only) year of Greek that rule about ἵνα never having ἄν in finalclauses, and that if it does, it has local sense.From the translation of Aristotle's quote (though I guess from previous threadsI should be weary of drawing conclusions from translations alone), it seems it comes with a conditional sense.

What does ἐάν/ἤν πως mean? Smyth and (your quoted) Cooper mentioned it but I can't find any reference in Smyth's index so I don't know where to look. LSJ didn't have this other than εἴ πως but without a gloss.

Cooper 1:54.8.4 p. 717, observes that we never see ἄν with ἵνα because ἵνα is unambiguously final: in order that at, whereas ὅπως ἂν with subjunctive means something like: to see if.

I do remember from my first- (and only) year of Greek that rule about ἵνα never having ἄν in finalclauses, and that if it does, it has local sense.From the translation of Aristotle's quote (though I guess from previous threadsI should be weary of drawing conclusions from translations alone), it seems it comes with a conditional sense.

What does ἐάν/ἤν πως mean? Smyth and (your quoted) Cooper mentioned it but I can't find any reference in Smyth's index so I don't know where to look. LSJ didn't have this other than εἴ πως but without a gloss.

Nate, for what its worth, Cooper glosses ἤν πως "to see if" but he is rather tentative about it. Cooper agrees with your memory of " ἵνα never having ἄν in final clauses, and that if it does, it has local sense." He states that ἵνα is a relative local adverb (whereas, wherein) which came to be used in final clauses. (Cooper vol. 2, P. 1335, 1:69.31.1). I didn't have much success in deciphering the citations I posted from Hippo. other than getting the impression they were probably not final uses of ἵνα ἄν and the citation Section 11, line 50 does NOT have a subjunctive.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Cooper glosses ἤν πως "to see if" but he is rather tentative about it. Cooper agrees with your memory of " ἵνα never having ἄν in final clauses, and that if it does, it has local sense." He states that ἵνα is a relative local adverb (whereas, wherein) which came to be used in final clauses. (Cooper vol. 2, P. 1335, 1:69.31.1).

ἵνα like other conjunctions and particles probably does not have much in the way of semantic content. It seems to function as a marker for certain kinds of content. What kind of content is determined by looking at the co-text. If it is used to mark a final clause we will find ἵνα framed in the co-text with semantic contend suitable to that purpose. If it is used as local adverb we will find it in a co-text suitable to that purpose. If the co-text frame is ambiguous in this regard then we start talking about probabilities given patterns of ἵνα use in that author, genre, dialect, historical period.

Margaret Sim[1] calls ἵνα a procedural marker used to guide a readers/hearers interpretation of an utterance. It gives the reader a notice about how to read the text the follows, e.g. "read the following as a final clause." M. Sim argues that during the Koine period "final clause" is too restrictive a category.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate, for what its worth, Cooper glosses ἤν πως "to see if" but he is rather tentative about it. Cooper agrees with your memory of " ἵνα never having ἄν in final clauses, and that if it does, it has local sense." He states that ἵνα is a relative local adverb (whereas, wherein) which came to be used in final clauses. (Cooper vol. 2, P. 1335, 1:69.31.1). I didn't have much success in deciphering the citations I posted from Hippo. other than getting the impression they were probably not final uses of ἵνα ἄν and the citation Section 11, line 50 does NOT have a subjunctive.

Just a minor problem I'm having: what phrase do you search for in the TLG and how do you enter it? (I have access to a TLG database I've once found online and I'm using Diogenes to browse it)I've tried everything but I can't find the requested phrase ἵνα ἂν. If it is there, I'll probably need to wade through a thicket of results to find it.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Nate, for what its worth, Cooper glosses ἤν πως "to see if" but he is rather tentative about it. Cooper agrees with your memory of " ἵνα never having ἄν in final clauses, and that if it does, it has local sense." He states that ἵνα is a relative local adverb (whereas, wherein) which came to be used in final clauses. (Cooper vol. 2, P. 1335, 1:69.31.1). I didn't have much success in deciphering the citations I posted from Hippo. other than getting the impression they were probably not final uses of ἵνα ἄν and the citation Section 11, line 50 does NOT have a subjunctive.

Just a minor problem I'm having: what phrase do you search for in the TLG and how do you enter it? (I have access to a TLG database I've once found online and I'm using Diogenes to browse it)I've tried everything but I can't find the requested phrase ἵνα ἂν. If it is there, I'll probably need to wade through a thicket of results to find it.

Nate,

My Diogenes TLG set up doesn't parse unicode phrases, only single words. Try entering [space] ina [space] an [space], and see what you get. I limited the search to 8bc-1ad, probably better to limit it to 8bc to 3bc but I didn't bother with it. Looked through 10 hits and eliminated most of them.

My Diogenes TLG set up doesn't parse unicode phrases, only single words. Try entering [space] ina [space] an [space], and see what you get. I limited the search to 8bc-1ad, probably better to limit it to 8bc to 3bc but I didn't bother with it. Looked through 10 hits and eliminated most of them.

Much appreciated! Entering the phrase with spaces and in Latin letters is the trick. This would help mein my searches later on.

The reason I'm having trouble understanding these nuances is that I'm mainly familiar withἵνα (w/o ἄν) + subj. (primary tenses) / opt. (secondary t.) or ὅπως + fut. ind. for final clauses. Finding more possible constructions and various meanings is intriguing, if a bit puzzling.Thanks for keeping the discussion going and providing us with Cooper's citations.

The middle line here is annoyingly vague. The subject of καθαιρεῖ is τις θεῶν, the object τὸν ... φῶτ' ἄδικον. τῶν is demonstrative but what is the referent? Those who are blameworthy? The whole scenario of Paris being a guest who steals the wife of his host and brings calamity on his people and his city.

The middle line here is annoyingly vague. The subject of καθαιρεῖ is τις θεῶν, the object τὸν ... φῶτ' ἄδικον. τῶν is demonstrative but what is the referent? Those who are blameworthy? The whole scenario of Paris being a guest who steals the wife of his host and brings calamity on his people and his city.

ἐπίστροφον takes a genitive τῶν, it is translated all over the place.

At first I thought LSJ gloss for ἐπίστροφον, conversant, means something like someoneengaged in a dialogue with another (English is not my native tongue). So I checkedthe dictionary and it seems it means being familiar with something. Sidwickreads it as neuter demonstrative, in these things, i.e. his unjust actions, and Smyth translation also follows that sense.

Raeburn-Thomas (R-T) suggests "paying attention to" which is part of an alternative parsing of the lines 397-398 where λιτᾶν is "common to both clauses" and is "picked up by the slightly vaguer neuter τῶν" (???).

R-T translates

"the δὲ-clause ... 'while the unjust man who respects them he [= the sinner] destroys', i.e. brings down with him. This gives a good contrast to the μὲν- and δὲ-clauses;'

Not sure what to make of this.

C. Collard

And no god listens to his pleas; instead there is one to destroy the unjust manwho engages in these things.

Ann Carson takes a different approach:

No god hears his prayersand if you befriend him, justice will take you down.

The common denonmiator among several readings/translations is the idea of having some involvement with something (Paris' violations of the code) or someone (Paris himself), the difference between these not being particularly important.

I don't understand R-T's reading of this sentence. Doesn't φῶτ' ἄδικον refer to Paris as objectof καθαιρεῖ? They seem to have turned it around that Paris does the destroying, but I can'tfigure out why an unjust man would have any respect for the gods.

NateD26 wrote:I don't understand R-T's reading of this sentence. Doesn't φῶτ' ἄδικον refer to Paris as objectof καθαιρεῖ? They seem to have turned it around that Paris does the destroying, but I can'tfigure out why an unjust man would have any respect for the gods.

His reading is slightly different in that he takes καθαιρεῖ in the sense of to condemn withφῶτ' ἄδικον as predicate.

Thanks Nate,

Yes φῶτ' ἄδικον refers to Paris. I no longer have R-T on hand. Ann Carson's An Oresteia is a translation only, without notes or comment.

We encounter yet another crux just a few lines later. Found a citation from a Harvard site, an article by Gloria Ferrari[1]. Note the difficult word ἅδιστος is represented by (?) in the translation.

The pathology of love described here suggestively parallels the one found in another famous passage of the Agamemnon, and this, I think, is ultimately the paragon of pothos to which the image of the love–sick sailors in Thucydides refers. The chorus describes Menelaus, wretched in his palace, abandoned by Helen (414–19; translation Wohl 1998:93–94, modified):

We can see him there,sitting apart, in silence, dishon–ored, not reviling, not beseech–ing (?). And in longing for herwho is beyond the sea, a ghostshall seem to rule the house. And the charm of beautiful stat–ues is hateful to the man; andin the emptiness of eyes, all Aphroditeis gone.

Raeburn-Thomas (R-T) suggests "paying attention to" which is part of an alternative parsing of the lines 397-398 where λιτᾶν is "common to both clauses" and is "picked up by the slightly vaguer neuter τῶν" (???).

R-T translates

"the δὲ-clause ... 'while the unjust man who respects them he [= the sinner] destroys', i.e. brings down with him. This gives a good contrast to the μὲν- and δὲ-clauses;'

Not sure what to make of this.

'picked up by the lightly vaguer neuter τῶν' - difficult for me to accept. I'm increasingly convinced (like I've discussed in the other thread on lines 4-7) that demonstrative ὁ marks a contrast in Agamemnon, which is not happening if we tranlate τῶν 'them' like this.

Raeburn-Thomas (R-T) suggests "paying attention to" which is part of an alternative parsing of the lines 397-398 where λιτᾶν is "common to both clauses" and is "picked up by the slightly vaguer neuter τῶν" (???).

R-T translates

"the δὲ-clause ... 'while the unjust man who respects them he [= the sinner] destroys', i.e. brings down with him. This gives a good contrast to the μὲν- and δὲ-clauses;'

Not sure what to make of this.

'picked up by the lightly vaguer neuter τῶν' - difficult for me to accept. I'm increasingly convinced (like I've discussed in the other thread on lines 4-7) that demonstrative ὁ marks a contrast in Agamemnon, which is not happening if we tranlate τῶν 'them' like this.

But I can't be sure of course...

The R-T reading is interesting but not compelling. Offering alternatives to what has already been said 100 times is the justification for new commentaries on classics. So R-T is worth consulting. Anything that shakes you out of the well worn paths and makes you really confront the non-deterministic nature of the text as we have it, anything that makes you rethink the problem is worth reading.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The R-T reading is interesting but not compelling. Offering alternatives to what has already been said 100 times is the justification for new commentaries on classics. So R-T is worth consulting. Anything that shakes you out of the well worn paths and makes you really confront the non-deterministic nature of the text as we have it, anything that makes you rethink the problem is worth reading.

I agree. Although sadly I suspect this is the kind of issue where the 19th century scholars have an upper hand, because they simply knew Greek better, as their educational system was so focused on learning Greek and Latin. Now, we have a much better big picture, thanks to a better understanding of linguistics, archeology, history, whatever. But getting a gut feeling of a language usually requires starting intensive study at early age, which is increasingly scarce.

We can see him there,sitting apart, in silence, dishon–ored, not reviling, not beseech–ing (?). And in longing for herwho is beyond the sea, a ghostshall seem to rule the house. And the charm of beautiful stat–ues is hateful to the man; andin the emptiness of eyes, all Aphroditeis gone.

Who is the subject of the participle ἀφεμένων on line 413? The translations either use a masculine pronoun indicating Menelaus or leave it alone. σιγᾶς is the subject of πάρεστι. My initial inclination was to read ἀφεμένων as a reference to Helen’s absence like the adjective ὑπερποντίας in the next line. But now it seems unlikely that ἀφεμένων has a personal referent, the morphology is all wrong for a reference to an individual. Lack of explicit reference to participants is a major contributor to difficulties encountered in these speeches.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:The R-T reading is interesting but not compelling. Offering alternatives to what has already been said 100 times is the justification for new commentaries on classics. So R-T is worth consulting. Anything that shakes you out of the well worn paths and makes you really confront the non-deterministic nature of the text as we have it, anything that makes you rethink the problem is worth reading.

I agree. Although sadly I suspect this is the kind of issue where the 19th century scholars have an upper hand, because they simply knew Greek better, as their educational system was so focused on learning Greek and Latin. Now, we have a much better big picture, thanks to a better understanding of linguistics, archeology, history, whatever. But getting a gut feeling of a language usually requires starting intensive study at early age, which is increasingly scarce.

Paul,

The old works are difficult for me to read. I came to Greek via mid-20th century linguistics. I have no language issues.I read many thousands of pages of difficult archaic english works in graduate school (e.g. Jonathan Edwards). What I find difficult is the framework, lets call it philology as C. S. Lewis employed that term, Ransom in the space trilogy was a philologist. Greek and Latin philology employ an arcane meta-language which Randall Buth is trying single handedly put out of business. I don't expect Randall Buth to succeed in stamping out Greek and Latin philology. I admire anyone who is willing to put in the effort it takes to understand what these old guys (a few women, e.g., Edith Hamilton) are saying.

I think the fog factor in the old philologists is a major deterrent to grasping the concepts. An early linguistic approach pioneered by E.V.N. Geotchius Language of the NT wasn't followed up by anyone else. Some of the current NT linguists, e.g. S. E. Porter and Stephen Levinsohn are if anything even more obfuscatious than the old school philologists. So we end up with students running for shelter to the old works where the meta-language is at least shared by a broad apparent consensus. But this consensus is riddled with significant difficulties. You can read Randall Buth on this, I don't want to duplicate his effort.

We can see him there,sitting apart, in silence, dishon–ored, not reviling, not beseech–ing (?). And in longing for herwho is beyond the sea, a ghostshall seem to rule the house. And the charm of beautiful stat–ues is hateful to the man; andin the emptiness of eyes, all Aphroditeis gone.

Who is the subject of the participle ἀφεμένων on line 413? The translations either use a masculine pronoun indicating Menelaus or leave it alone. σιγᾶς is the subject of πάρεστι. My initial inclination was to read ἀφεμένων as a reference to Helen’s absence like the adjective ὑπερποντίας in the next line. But now it seems unlikely that ἀφεμένων has a personal referent, the morphology is all wrong for a reference to an individual. Lack of explicit reference to participants is a major contributor to difficulties encountered in these speeches.

Looking again at Lattimore and Fagels

ἅδιστος ἀφεμένων† ἰδεῖν

The agony of his loss is clear before us — Lattimore

the stun of his desolation is so clear - — Fagels

The referent of the participle ἀφεμένων is not Menelaus' himself but what Menelaus is morning over which includes everything about Helen's betrayal and absence. The whole scenario is the referent of ἀφεμένων.

This another very difficult passage. What is ἅδιστος supposed to mean? The superlative of ἡδύς? And what would that mean? No wonder they're printing daggers. West and Loeb/Sommerstein accept the emendation ἀλίστους, as the translation you quote seems to be doing too with 'not beseeching (?)'.

With ἀφεμένων too scholars resort to emendation, either to ἀφημένων or (e.g. Sommerstein and West) ἀφειμένων.

This is what Sommerstein, West and R-T all seem to accept ('heavily emended, according to R-T):πάρεστι σιγὰς ἀτίμους ἀλοιδόρους ἀλίστους ἀφειμένων ἰδεῖν'One can observe the rejected party's silences, which are without honour, without revilement, without entreaty.' (Translation R-T)

Another demonstration of how difficult this text is. Because what else can I do except accept whatever emendation I am given? I don't feel even close to know Aeschylus well enough to do any thinking myself.

Paul Derouda wrote:This another very difficult passage. What is ἅδιστος supposed to mean? The superlative of ἡδύς? And what would that mean? No wonder they're printing daggers. West and Loeb/Sommerstein accept the emendation ἀλίστους, as the translation you quote seems to be doing too with 'not beseeching (?)'.

With ἀφεμένων too scholars resort to emendation, either to ἀφημένων or (e.g. Sommerstein and West) ἀφειμένων.

This is what Sommerstein, West and R-T all seem to accept ('heavily emended, according to R-T):πάρεστι σιγὰς ἀτίμους ἀλοιδόρους ἀλίστους ἀφειμένων ἰδεῖν'One can observe the rejected party's silences, which are without honour, without revilement, without entreaty.' (Translation R-T)

Another demonstration of how difficult this text is. Because what else can I do except accept whatever emendation I am given? I don't feel even close to know Aeschylus well enough to do any thinking myself.

Paul,

I tried to find a translation that retained ἅδιστος without success (so far). The scribe that copied this wouldn't have cooked up this reading on his own. It is too strange. The editors and commentaries we are using seem to rush into conjectural emendations with reckless disregard for the MS tradition. It takes work and some imagination to make the text meaningful as it came down to us. It ism't safe to assume that the scribes were idiots who copied complete nonsense.

In many places it seems we are given not enough words but in the following the words pile up with semantic redundancy. This sort of over-encoding is used for climatic discourse marking, in this case the end of the prophetic speech.

I tried to find a translation that retained ἅδιστος without success (so far). The scribe that copied this wouldn't have cooked up this reading on his own. It is too strange. The editors and commentaries we are using seem to rush into conjectural emendations with reckless disregard for the MS tradition. It takes work and some imagination to make the text meaningful as it came down to us. It ism't safe to assume that the scribes were idiots who copied complete nonsense.

The problem with Agamemnon is that the text really is in a bad state. I read a good discussion of the transmission of the text (though, since I'm working with a whole pile of different commentaries, I don't remember which book it was from and I've already forgotten most of it ( ); the main impression I got was that all the manuscripts are more or less corrupt. I suspect that what the editors can do is try to make text that is meaningful Greek, but it's impossible for them to give us the original text of Aeschylus with any certitude. R-T says the Agamemnon survives in just five related manuscripts and their copies. The situation is very different from say Homer or the New Testament, where the scribes always had a wealth of manuscripts to compare and to correct mistakes.

I don't disagree entirely on this with you. I'll quote Fraenkel in his preface:"We have only to pause for a moment and consider, first, the enormous gulf between our ways of life and thought and those of ancient Greece, then the sadly fragmentary nature of our whole tradition, and, finally, the solitary boldness of Aeschylus, to realize that it would be a sign of megalomania if we fancied it to be possible for us fully to understand the words of this poet wherever we have them in their original form. More than once, therefore, I have had to state that I regard the text of a certain line as probably sound but am nevertheless unable to grasp its meaning. This conviction must not, of course, serve as a pretext for slackening in our exertions."

There's nothing wrong with your translation, I'm just thinking about the exact nuances of μάταν γάρ. I think an literal rendition of μάταν γάρ would be "vain, because...", "they bring an empty joy - empty, because..." Denniston's Greek Particles points out (pp. 65-66) that γάρ here refers not to the main idea of preceding sentence, but to an individual word.

I tried to find a translation that retained ἅδιστος without success (so far). The scribe that copied this wouldn't have cooked up this reading on his own. It is too strange. The editors and commentaries we are using seem to rush into conjectural emendations with reckless disregard for the MS tradition. It takes work and some imagination to make the text meaningful as it came down to us. It ism't safe to assume that the scribes were idiots who copied complete nonsense.

The problem with Agamemnon is that the text really is in a bad state. I read a good discussion of the transmission of the text (though, since I'm working with a whole pile of different commentaries, I don't remember which book it was from and I've already forgotten most of it ( ); the main impression I got was that all the manuscripts are more or less corrupt. I suspect that what the editors can do is try to make text that is meaningful Greek, but it's impossible for them to give us the original text of Aeschylus with any certitude. R-T says the Agamemnon survives in just five related manuscripts and their copies. The situation is very different from say Homer or the New Testament, where the scribes always had a wealth of manuscripts to compare and to correct mistakes.

I don't disagree entirely on this with you. I'll quote Fraenkel in his preface:"We have only to pause for a moment and consider, first, the enormous gulf between our ways of life and thought and those of ancient Greece, then the sadly fragmentary nature of our whole tradition, and, finally, the solitary boldness of Aeschylus, to realize that it would be a sign of megalomania if we fancied it to be possible for us fully to understand the words of this poet wherever we have them in their original form. More than once, therefore, I have had to state that I regard the text of a certain line as probably sound but am nevertheless unable to grasp its meaning. This conviction must not, of course, serve as a pretext for slackening in our exertions."

West remarks ἅδιστος and ἄλιστος are paleographically very similar.

Paul,

Thanks for the citations from Faenkel, West et al. Don't have these fellows on hand. Are you translating Fraenkel? Probably I have misjudged Denniston-Page. Denniston seems to me to jump at the chance to complain about the incomprehensible state of the text currently under consideration. Lexical semantic problems in Aeschylus abound. So when we run into difficulties with a particular word like ἅδιστος the first project is to explore possible "new meanings" that would fit the co-text. This kind of difficult at times. When this fails then conjectural emendation is the last resort. I didn't find anyone suggesting new meanings for ἅδιστος in this co-text so I would assume that this was attempted and it proved more or less impossible. I can live with that, but the complete silence regarding possible other meanings for ἅδιστος struck me as strange. I have not read all the old commentaries or translations.

In NT and LXX textual criticism conjectural emendation is almost never employed to solve an isolated (one word) lexical semantic problem. So it takes some adjustment in ones thinking to work in Attic Tragedy where the MSS evidence is scanty, corrupt and late.

There's nothing wrong with your translation, I'm just thinking about the exact nuances of μάταν γάρ. I think an literal rendition of μάταν γάρ would be "vain, because...", "they bring an empty joy - empty, because..." Denniston's Greek Particles points out (pp. 65-66) that γάρ here refers not to the main idea of preceding sentence, but to an individual word.

Paul,γάρ is used to introduce background material that provides explanations or expositions of a previous assertion, S. Levinsohn [1]. That of course is from a discussion of Koine. It seems to fit our text, where εὖτ’ ἂν ἐσθλά ... ὕπνου κελεύθοις might be understood as an exposition of ... φέρουσαι χάριν ματαίαν. The logical sequence is so obvious that μάταν γάρ seems somewhat redundant. One could argue that this redundancy indicates μάταν γάρ is marked with increased salience. However, that doesn't take into account that γάρ is very common, often rather bland and μάταν γάρ may be used for all kinds of reasons (e.g., metrical). The notion of increased salience does not show up in translation. Looking at six English translations, only two gave any notice of γάρ (Edith Hamilton, H. W. Smyth) both rendered it for which is the minimalist choice in English. Lattimore just repeats the word vain to make connection and ignores γάρ and so also David Grene: "theirs is a grace without substance. Unsubstantiated it is."; since Grene and Lattimore were representatives of the formal equivelence school, you gotta conclude they didn't think γάρ contributes much in this passage.

Thanks for the citations from Faenkel, West et al. Don't have these fellows on hand. Are you translating Fraenkel? Probably I have misjudged Denniston-Page. Denniston seems to me to jump at the chance to complain about the incomprehensible state of the text currently under consideration. Lexical semantic problems in Aeschylus abound. So when we run into difficulties with a particular word like ἅδιστος the first project is to explore possible "new meanings" that would fit the co-text. This kind of difficult at times. When this fails then conjectural emendation is the last resort. I didn't find anyone suggesting new meanings for ἅδιστος in this co-text so I would assume that this was attempted and it proved more or less impossible. I can live with that, but the complete silence regarding possible other meanings for ἅδιστος struck me as strange. I have not read all the old commentaries or translations.

In NT and LXX textual criticism conjectural emendation is almost never employed to solve an isolated (one word) lexical semantic problem. So it takes some adjustment in ones thinking to work in Attic Tragedy where the MSS evidence is scanty, corrupt and late.

The text I'm basically reading is Sommerstein's Loeb edition; the Greek text seems sensible and the translation is good (though how would I know...). I suppose West's Teubner edition would be even better but I couldn't get hold of it. I think Sommerstein often follows West though.

As for commentaries, I regularly consult R-T and Denniston-Page. I couldn't resist borrowing Fraenkel from the university library when I run into it, but I only look at it occasionnally when I'm really puzzled, because it's really wordy (3 tomes, over 1000 pages).

West's Studies in Aeschylus isn't really a commentary; the chapter on Agamemnon only discusses some selected problems. West is, by the way, of all living Greek scholars the one I hold in highest esteem. Anything on any subject that even remotely interests me is always a must to me.

I think for Page things are black and white. He has a tendency to say "impossible" often, even for readings the other commentators accept without blinking. I read his Homeric Odyssey recently; it was a great read, though I couldn't accept everything. He was a very definite analyst, i.e. he thought the Odyssey, because of linguistic grounds and illogicalities of the storyline, was later largely reworked by one or several later poets. This seems reasonable to me, whatever the now prevalent Oralists say. But he also expressed very strong views that the later poet(s) were totally inept idiots that completely messed up beautiful conception of the original poet. Ok, Homer nods from time to time - but how come so many people have read it and loved it in the last 2500+ years, if it's really that bad?

There's nothing wrong with your translation, I'm just thinking about the exact nuances of μάταν γάρ. I think an literal rendition of μάταν γάρ would be "vain, because...", "they bring an empty joy - empty, because..." Denniston's Greek Particles points out (pp. 65-66) that γάρ here refers not to the main idea of preceding sentence, but to an individual word.

Paul,γάρ is used to introduce background material that provides explanations or expositions of a previous assertion, S. Levinsohn [1]. That of course is from a discussion of Koine. It seems to fit our text, where εὖτ’ ἂν ἐσθλά ... ὕπνου κελεύθοις might be understood as an exposition of ... φέρουσαι χάριν ματαίαν. The logical sequence is so obvious that μάταν γάρ seems somewhat redundant. One could argue that this redundancy indicates μάταν γάρ is marked with increased salience. However, that doesn't take into account that γάρ is very common, often rather bland and μάταν γάρ may be used for all kinds of reasons (e.g., metrical). The notion of increased salience does not show up in translation. Looking at six English translations, only two gave any notice of γάρ (Edith Hamilton, H. W. Smyth) both rendered it for which is the minimalist choice in English. Lattimore just repeats the word vain to make connection and ignores γάρ and so also David Grene: "theirs is a grace without substance. Unsubstantiated it is."; since Grene and Lattimore were representatives of the formal equivelence school, you gotta conclude they didn't think γάρ contributes much in this passage.

I wanted to point out that Denniston here seems to think that here γάρ specifically draws attention to an individual word and not the previous sentence as a whole. I think this idea is well expressed in "theirs is a grace without substance. Unsubstantiated it is.", although there's no because and thus no "formal equivalence" (though I don't know how Grene continues).

Denniston doesn't offer any translation or explanation here, but the first example in the same section is